Ohh boy. I had been pulling for you up until this point Mercedes. Your answer is that the proof you accept as proof is unacceptable to us as proof. Did you ever consider that some of may have looked for proof and not found it? I have. What I have found is coincidences, inferences, mass hysteria, and attempted coercion.

I don't care about my free will, what little I may have of it. If some convincing proof, and by that I mean proof that would actually convince me without threat of torture if I didn't believe it, came my way I would happily believe. It hasn't. I will not take what you or anyone else says as proof. I need to have the proof myself.

If your god doesn't need to prove itself that way, then it doesn't need me to worship it. An omnipotent (and rational) deity would not play these narcissistic head games with the creations it allegedly loves. That is not love. It is all about control. I know I am not in control of much and I don't need to have a lot of control but I do resent attempts to make me believe something that makes no sense just so that I won't be tortured forever. My mind can't do that. that is why I don't believe in your god. It's nothing personal, by the way. I don't believe in any other gods either.

Gallup's Mirror I didn't use the word faith in that above comment so I guess I don't know what your are trying to inject into my words. Most people here are telling me im crazy instead of answering my question. I thought I was welcome here. that's what you all said before. I sure don't feel it now. I was just asking a question. The Bible has lots of proof in it. It's not meant to be read literally and its almost like you guys think it should. some parts are figuative or mataphoric, some are historical, but im no bible scholar so I have to rely on what i'm taught. why is that bad?

The Bible has lots of proof in it. It's not meant to be read literally and its almost like you guys think it should. some parts are figuative or mataphoric, some are historical,

And who decides what is figurative or metaphoric or literal? The problem with the bible, Mercedes, is that the parts that people often tout as "historic" are in huge conflict with any other record of history.

A written text is not proof. Yes, you can say that there are historical accuracies in the Bible, and you can even make the claim that the text in the Bible was written by men acting on the word of God (I.E. he told them what to write)

But neither of those items can prove the Bible's truth, because neither of those claims can be proven themselves (there is much doubt on many of the "historical accuracies" noted, and obviously, there's no way to prove that God told those men what to write)

To the rest of us, it's just a book, no different in its "truth" than any other book. So while you've been taught to think of it as the ultimate word, we will never think of it that way. And so, we'll always just think of it as just another book.

A school text book is also suspect. You can't even believe what is written in them, simply based on the fact that it is written in a book. Fortunately, though, most facts in textbooks are verifiable through scientific methods and observations. So while just being written in a book does not make an adequate proof, one can go out and find actual proof to verify the book.

It's not bad to rely on what you're taught, but it is bad to not consider the source of your information. A church is biased. Your parents are biased. (Mine too!) And really, every source is at least a little biased, but you try to find all sides of an argument, from the most accurate sources you can, and go from there.

And as to being welcome here, you certainly are. Even your question is welcome, and as far as I can read most of us have spent quite a bit of energy trying to answer it in different fair and clear ways. Unfortunately, more than one of those fair and clear answers was met with some form of denial from you that they weren't answering your original question, that you just didn't get it, etc. I can't speak for others but I know that so far in this thread I've tried to answer you in the best way I know how, fairly and truthfully, logically and thoughtfully. But still you're so defensive and bent on winning an argument whose terms you haven't even properly defined (yet another fallacy, by the way), that no matter how hard everyone tries nothing that is said will satisfy you.

So, in short, you are welcome here, but your poor attitude and close-mindedness are not.

Gallup's Mirror I didn't use the word faith in that above comment so I guess I don't know what your are trying to inject into my words.

Are you seriously saying the words faith and belief cannot be used interchangeably in a religious context? That I injected some new meaning into the word faith that you don't comprehend? Please, Mercedes. I don't believe you're that obtuse so kindly stop pretending to be.

If you genuinely ARE that dull-witted then change the "faith" in my sentences above to the word you did use: belief. It doesn't change the meaning appreciably. Belief is only necessary when you DON'T have proof.

I don't need to believe 2 + 2 = 4 or have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because I have proof that it is.

Most people here are telling me im crazy instead of answering my question.

I have no control over what others do on this site. For my part I have answered your question.

I thought I was welcome here. that's what you all said before. I sure don't feel it now. I was just asking a question. The Bible has lots of proof in it.

What is not welcome, Mercedes, is what you're doing above. You say the Bible is proof. We tell you it is not, and more importantly we tell you why it is not. To continue the conversation you would need to address those responses. Instead, you ignore those responses and repeat yourself. Essentially:

You: The Bible proves God exists!Me: How?You: The Bible is historically accurate!Me: Even if it is that does not prove that God exists.(No Response. But later in the same thread:)You: The Bible proves God exists! Me: *Sigh*

What good is it to ask a question if you're unwilling to accept the answer?

It's not meant to be read literally and its almost like you guys think it should.

Not atheists, Mercedes. We don't think that at all. I myself find the Bible is more suitable as emergency roadside toilet paper than as reading material, literal or otherwise.

In the US most evangelical Christians say the Bible should be read literally and they are the largest religious group. If you see us putting this sort of slant on the Bible it's because we're referring generally to them: a (perhaps THE) religious mainstream of the US. Stick around long enough and you'll see they don't have an exclusive around here.

some parts are figuative or mataphoric, some are historical, but im no bible scholar so I have to rely on what i'm taught. why is that bad?

If what you were taught is untrue or faulty-- and it surely is-- then it's unreliable, so you should not rely on it. That is why.

Actually, the bible, in and of itself is proof that god does NOT exist. If an all powerful being existed that wants (and actually requires) me to belief in it, then it would show itself to me. It would not require me to "open my heart" because it is supposedly immeasurably more powerful than I am. It would give me the opportunity to accept or reject it's teachings, and if I rejected, then torment for eternity it is (although, since I would not be able to learn from that torment, because, according to xians, it is always "eternal", that just proves god is petty and vindictive, not traits of an "all-loving" god). But punishing people for not believing when he specifically withheld the proof required to believe in him is just, dare I say it - EVIL.